Crank. Crackpot. Stooge. Conspiracy theorist paranoid.Shameless media whore.Certifiable nut job.Smirking arrogant doof.Crazy Mike.Worm.Con-job ruse.Offers nothing but scary predictions.At best a blowhard gatekeeper.Profiteer.Garbage.Creme de la creme of sloppiness.A legend in his own mind.When it comes to insulting Michael Ruppert, his enemies simply cannot hold their ink. Knowing who they are, their ocean of character assassination is the greatest possible tribute anybody could give him. I won´t attempt to match it here.So, who are they?For those readers who did not undergo certain knotty life experiences, the Ruppert-hater telltale heart is not what it is for us who were less fortunate: obvious. Hence, for the lucky ones, a brief digression is in order. Call it a 101 class in oligarch appreciation, a la music appreciation. * * *Academically, my local public high school was so rotten it didn´t even stink. After it almost lost its accreditation, my worried parents made me go to a private boarding school for tenth grade. They told me that after one year I could decide if I wanted to stay.The school was Ransom in Coconut Grove, Miami.Academically, Ransom was excellent. However, an education involves other things. Among them was whom I was sitting next to in class. I would tell you who they were but you would accuse me of shameless name-dropping -- and you would be right. Let´s just say my classmates were the scions of the haute Miami, the toute Florida, the beau monde of America North and South. They make more money in one minute watching an iCarly rerun than you do working hard all year.In the first week at Ransom something hit me smack-dab in the kisser about those kids. They had zero curiosity. Learn -- why? What for? With their birth certificates came lifetime chairs in the nonstop cocktail circuit flowing from Miami to Houston and all points west. East, too. All they had to do was nod, wink, and, for heaven´s sake, not actually say "Duh." In my second week at Ransom, something else hit me. No point beating around the bush: my classmates were barnstormingly stupid. Indelibly, relentlessly so. I will never forget an exasperated history teacher informing the kid in front of me that he was "nothing but a Brontosaurus. A Brontosaurus -- you hear me?" During the ensuing silence, I contemplated the boy´s longetudinous neck terminating in a friendly pin head; rontundatus legs; slow blinks; laborious chewing gestures. By god, the teacher was onto something.As for just how Brontosaurus my class was, let me put it this way. To maintain its reputation, each year Ransom had to send at least one graduate to the Ivy League. The headmaster, Mr. Cameron, called me into his office the last day of the school year. Cognizant of the earthly delights I was indulging in, I braced myself for a paddling."We hope you will come back," he said. I will never forget his wide/wider/widest smile. I had been pegged for Harvard.Mr. Cameron was unaware he had in front of him a consummate 16-year-old who had read Catcher in The Rye and On The Road and pronounced both works to be as exciting as a wet tortilla. Phony, over-hyped, boring but scary "rebel" stories served up by the system to keep the children close to the campfire: with Mr. Cameron I was determined to be consistent..."Me? Harvard?" I offhandedly inquired. Cat/canary: it was my turn to be relentless. "You gotta be kidding." I think it was probably the first and last time a student gave Mr. Cameron a hard time. I didn´t encounter the same picante don´t-play-ball-with-the-system attitude until some 40 years later, when Michael Ruppert capsized CIA Director John Deutch in a public meeting. More on that confrontation shortly.

What Ransom taught me: if you want to have the sensation of prolonging your life, spend time among America´s oligarchy. 50 minutes will seem like 50 years.

We come to the telltale heart of Michael Ruppert´s enemies. They never offer arguments against his arguments. Never. They do not because they cannot. Unlike you and me, dear reader, the fact of the matter is they didn´t have to learn anything in school; all they had to do was pass. For members of the oligarchy that´s how life works, and it explains why as adults their criticisms cannot go beyond ad hominem attacks: crank, crackpot, stooge, ad nauseam. Sidebar: I used the expression ad hominem knowing full good and well the oligarchs and their Girls Friday, Saturday and Sunday don´t have foggiest idea what it means. Result: they tune this blog out, stay away in droves. While collecting invectives hurled at Ruppert, I realized something. There they were -- my Ransom classmates. I´d know them anywhere. The only significant change they had undergone since 10th grade is that today they sit atop the largest corporations in America. Those fortunate readers mentioned above who lack direct experience with oligarchs and their sundry sidekicks and hangers-on undoubtedly think I am over the top when I accuse America´s wealthiest of barnstorming stupidity. And so, to hear an honest-to-god oligarch speak, I invite those readers to listen to this video. When it comes to America´s archi-rich, the level of conversation you will hear from the 1.9-billion-dollar man Donald Sterling is the rule, not the exception. I know -- I had to put up with it for nine months. Like it or not, the simple fact is over 95% of Americans directly or indirectly work for oligarchs. You disagree? There is an infallible indicator that men like Sterling are irrefutably and firmly in control: not that they pay peanuts for taxes or own yachts and racehorses but that you have to laugh at their jokes.

My Ransom history teacher sure knew his history. Think Brontosaurus: you´ve got it. * * *Michael Ruppert burst onto the American scene on November 15, 1996. CIA Director John Deutch was attending a town hall meeting at Locke High School in Los Angeles. Ruppert stepped up to the microphone and confronted Deutch, saying that as a former LAPD narcotics detective he had evidence the CIA "has dealt drugs throughout this country for a long time." The Ruppert/Deutch face-off is on YouTube. Deutch stumbled and fumbled; a month later, President Clinton fired him. Watch Deutch´s hands in the video; all I can say is, he had better not play poker. If you wonder how a man like Deutch, who couldn´t handle a simple question and answer session with the public, could ever become the head of the CIA, please revisit our oligarch appreciation class. Corollary: if you condemn President Clinton for appointing Deutch, I say au contraire, the appointment was excellent. The CIA directorship was the perfect place for him. He was supposed to represent the agency and he did.Do you wonder where Deutch is now? Don´t. The oligarchy takes care of its own. He is safely ensconced as a professor at MIT and chronic board member of a plethora of companies and institutions, including Harvard´s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. To readers who believe I was grievously mistaken in giving Harvard the old heave-ho, John Deutch is my reply. * * *Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise.Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before. -- William Shatner, Star Trek --This blog will boldly go where no Ruppert foe has gone before.

We start with the most frequent charge hurled at Ruppert: conspiracy theoristparanoid.

Right? Wrong? There is a reasonable way to confirm or deny the allegation.

Either (i) conspiracies really exist in the political world or (ii) they do not. If they do not exist then obviously the allegation of "conspiracy theorist paranoid" has merit. Considerable merit, in fact.

But what if political conspiracies exist?

Machiavelli thought they did; he wrote at length about them. After decades of working in political campaigns and with leaders in all three branches of government, I too think conspiracies exist.

If conspiracies exist then the allegation of conspiracy theorist paranoid is unwarranted at least some of the time. To wit:

If political conspiracies actually occur then we have no other choice but to decide on a case by case basis if a conspiracy was present. The JFK assassination is an example. For me there was never any doubt a conspiracy existed.* That conclusion is based not on books, movies, documentaries, speculations, folklore, he-said-that-she-said tweets, government reports or learned academic treatises but on the following fact: as a certified NRA Expert Marksman, I can tell you there is no way Lee Harvey Oswald could have done what the Warren Commission said he did. I must note that what I just said flies in the face of the Commission´s conclusions (see its Report, p. 20). To clear up this matter once and for all, I challenge any fellow Expert Marksman to step forward and, with a straight face, refute my statement.

Sidebar. Oswald would be low on the NRA totem pole, perhaps a Sharpshooter Bar 3, with an even lower $29.95 (plus postage and handling) 6.5 Carcano rifle. Translation for non-gun enthusiasts: I can go to any busy street corner, select at random a kid with 20/20 eyesight, give him a decent rifle, and in three weeks he will outshoot Oswald. Make that two weeks if the kid has talent. He won´t, however, be able to match what happened in Dallas. I know I couldn´t and I won a stack of medals.

What it boils down to: if there actually was a conspiracy in a specific case then a conspiracy theorist researching it may be right or may be wrong; however, he will be on the right track. Nonconspiracy theorists, on the other hand, ipso facto will be misguided, lost, wrong.

* * * New Civilizations

Only rarely will we find undeniable proof of a conspiracy, e.g., the famous smoking-gun tape in the Watergate conspiracy. A lack of irrefutable proof is inherent in the very nature of conspiracies.

When I first cracked open Michael Ruppert´s book, I was curious to see how he would cut through that lack which is every inch a Gordian knot.

Here, I believe, is the answer:

Irrefutable proof aside, what we sometimes find in the real world is facts and/or events running together -- a syndrome. The term is common in medical science. Post-polio syndrome is a specific example. There are no laboratory tests -- no smoking gun -- to confirm PPS; its cause is unknown and there is no cure. PPS can only be diagnosed via numerous, rigorous physical exams and a comprehensive medical history of each individual patient. The physician looks for a concurrence of symptoms -- growing muscle weakness, joint pain, difficulty swallowing, etc. -- which, to complicate matters, can vary widely among individuals.

Despite all the vagaries and complications there is universal agreement among doctors and researchers that PPS exists. When all is said and done, something is there.

Crossing The Rubicon´s methodology centers on a syndrome. It would be reasonable to expect the syndrome approach to be common in criminology for the following reason: to establish that someone is guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt -- which is different from saying ANY doubt -- may entail the lack of a smoking gun but a trainload of other evidence, much of it more or less circumstantial. Even if we invoke criminology´s strictest standard of clear and convincing proof, we are still looking at high probability, not absolute certainty.

In criminology, medicine and other sciences, then, syndromes are an acceptable analytical tool. The Ruppert haters want you to believe otherwise: no absolute certainty; no case. All I can say is, their position is out of step and out of touch with the twenty-first century (among other things).

Brontosaurus reasoning, if there ever was one.

* * *

Ruppert´s core argument in Crossing The Rubicon: 9/11 resulted from a conspiracy by the U.S. Government.

Absurd? Crazy? As we noted above, there is only one way any particular conspiracy theory can be rationally rejected out of hand: no conspiracies exist. That position is at best naive. Let´s move on.

9/11 was a Federal Government-owned and operated enterprise: how could Ruppert seriously make such a claim? A lot is at stake. He either discovered the story of the century or fabricated the hoax of the decade. This blog will present an iron-clad way to determine, once and for all, which is true.

Ruppert´s thesis in a nutshell:

To survive, industrial societies are totally dependent on petroleum. Globally, new discoveries of oil peaked in 1964. (p. 30) In 1979, world oil production per capita peaked and is now declining. (37)

To preserve its way of life -- Ruppert´s argument goes -- the U.S. must secure its sources of oil. The sine quo non of that securement is a U.S. military presence where most oil reserves are located: the Middle East.

There was, however, a seemingly insurmountable barrier to that military presence: it was unacceptable to the American people. Only a clear-cut ideological justification of enormous proportions could change their minds and hearts -- nothing short of an attack of the magnitude of Pearl Harbor.**

9/11 was that attack.

Detective-style, through hundreds of pages Ruppert marshalled evidence to support his case for a 9/11 Washington conspiracy. That evidence consists of many items which at first glance appear to be independent and unrelated. No single item alone conclusively proves a conspiracy -- just as no single symptom conclusively proves the existence of a disease syndrome such as PPS. Whenever a syndrome is involved, it is necessary to painstakingly collect and connect dots.

Here are the bigger dots Ruppert worked with. I must note that he relied heavily on secondary sources of information -- notably books and media reports -- that may be right or may be wrong. That amorphous, ambiguous condition goes with the turf in social science research.

1. The U.S. Government knew in advance 9/11 was coming (220) and did nothing to stop it. French, German and Russian intelligence warned Washington of the attacks (185, 233); ditto Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency (256). Finally, the NSA had intercepted ominous al-Qaeda messages, e.g., "Tomorrow is zero hour." (232)

2. But Ruppert went beyond saying that the U.S. knowingly sat back and let 9/11 happen. He wrote

"the United States government not only had complete foreknowledge of the attacks of September 11, it also needed them and deliberately facilitated them, and even helped plan and execute them using techniques long understood in the world of covert operations." (15)

The U.S. Government perpetrated Pearl Harbor II? Literally, quite a charge.

Among Ruppert´s evidence of facilitation and execution: the CIA helped finance the attacks via Pakistani intelligence chief Mohmound Ahmad who sent $100,000 to hijack ringleader Mohammed Atta (115-122); two months before 9/11 CIA agents met with Osama bin Laden in a Dubai hospital (147); finally, that "at least five of the hijackers had received US military training at bases in the US, including flight lessons. Among the latter was Mohammed Atta, who apparently received his training while wanted for terrorist activities." (223-4)

3. Suspicious trading in stock options immediately prior to the 9/11 attacks. (Chapter 14) In particular, the volume of "puts" -- options purchased if you think a stock will go down -- was significantly higher than normal for United and American Airlines whose planes were hijacked.

Insider trading?

Ruppert: "The CIA is Wall Street. Wall Street is the CIA." (253). One hand washes the other. He detailed the revolving door between the two entities (53-7), e.g., Bill Casey, Reagan´s CIA director, was a Wall Street lawyer and stock trader. (54)

4. We come to what Ruppert called "the Holy Grail of 9/11 research" (336). It addresses a question that has always bothered me: why were no jets scrambled to intercept the hijacked airplanes?When all is said and done, any 9/11 conspiracy would have crashed and burned if the Twin Towers did not.

"As it turns out, on September 11th, various agencies including NORAD, the FAA, the Canadian Air Force, the National Reconnaissance Office, and possibly the Pentagon were conducting as many as five wargame drills -- in some cases involving hijacked airliners; in some cases also involving blips during (at least) the first attacks; and which in some cases had pulled significant fighter resources away from the northeast US on September 11... How could a NORAD commander have known where to send fighters...? There were clearly many possible hijackings underway. No one knew the exact number. No one knew which were real." (336, 348)

And now, the finish line: who was the controller of the war drills? In his hands rested the ultimate success or failure of any 9/11 conspiracy:

"All of this would have been coordinated through Dick Chaney´s mandate, and the live-fly drill could have been run through the Secret Service´s parallel and redundant communications and information systems inside the PEOC [President´s Emergency Operations Center], where Dick Chaney was involved and issuing orders shortly after 9 a.m." (433)

By controlling the war games, Cheney was the "´maestro´ on 9/11." (426) We will return to him shortly.

As noted, it is difficult to be definitive when a syndrome is involved. At best we have a preponderance of evidence, not absolute certainty. When, for example, post-polio syndrome is suspected, doctors order test after test, perform exam after exam (I speak from experience), and in the end... still aren´t 100% sure. Ruppert closed his 9/11 conspiracy case in the same vein:

"I place this work in your hands so that you may judge it in the ´jury room´ of your own mind, heart, and conscience...You and you alone, must decide for yourself what was proved and what was not. As in a criminal trial, it is a solemn responsibility..." (571)

Faced with Crossing The Rubicon´s barrage of facts, people, places, events, claims, statements, testimonies, stories, trends -- an amassing of symptoms some of which are more probative than others -- but missing a smoking gun in the form of a conclusive laboratory test, what are we to do? How will we decide if 9/11 was or was not a U.S. Government conspiracy?

Ruppert believed we had only two avenues. He quoted approvingly John Judge, 9/11 activist and researcher: "It´s O.K. if you call me a conspiracy theorist, just as long as you call yourself a coincidence theorist." (371)

U.S. Government inaction on intelligence warnings; abnormal stock market trading; war games on 9/11; etc.; etc.: conspiracy or coincidences?

I will add a third option. It was something Michael Ruppert wrestled with.

He wrote that there were

"literally dozens of opportunities for bin Laden´s capture which the US government chose to ignore. Sudanese officials had been keeping real-time surveillance of bin Laden´s movements in the country while he lived there until 1995 and giving the results to US intelligence...In fact, the Sudanese government offered to take bin Laden into custody and was rebuffed. One is compelled to ask whether this is collective, contagious, and continuing stupidity or more evidence of desired outcomes being realized." [My emphasis]

Stupidity -- The Brontosaurus Factor -- must be added to conspiracy and coincidence as a possible explanation of 9/11. For those who cry preposterous, please revisit our oligarch appreciation class.

I would nuance Ruppert´s notion of continuing stupidity with one of the most significant phenomena of our times: incomcruption. Simply put, it is the hopelessly-confounded amalgam of incompetence and corruption.

"the ambition of American politicians to be ´realistic.´ They behave and believe as if realism = competence.

The trick is to recognize that realism and competence are not equivalent -- unlike incompetence and corruption. With each passing day, the latter are transforming themselves from fraternal into identical twins. Shakespeare caught the drift: We came into the world like brother and brother; And now let’s go hand in hand, not one before another. -- ´The Comedy of Errors,´ Act 5, Scene 1 --

As for distinguishing incompetence from corruption, with time that distinction is becoming less and less important -- indeed, possible." (367)

Conspiracy, coincidence, incomcruption. I think all three were in play on 9/11.*** And beyond.

* * *

Regular readers of this blog know its central thesis. We presented it in The Big Movida: The Third American Revolution available for free on this site.

What you are about to read cannot be read anywhere else in America. Publishers and literary agents from coast to coast -- including phony "rebel" Catcher in The Rye and On The Road guys -- censored it.

"The First American Revolution, 1776-1789, transformed the political system from a monarchy not into a democracy but rather a ´политей´ or polity, i.e., a middle class-moderated, oligarchy/democracy hybrid inclined toward democracy. The Second American Revolution, 2008-2009, changed the polity into an oligarchy with democratic residues, accessories. That change was normal, predictable; Aristotle analyzed it 2000 years ago. The Third American Revolution will resurrect the polity but with greater power for democracy, less for the oligarchy."

Michael Ruppert was not trained in classic political theory, however, he arrived at a conclusion that is fully in keeping with the above framework.

Ruppert summarized "the concerns raised here...the concerns about Peak Oil, militarism, and a fascinating but frightening ride down a steep stairway to fascism." (472) The Source of Terrorism discussed America´s "decaying middle class and an emerging Fourth Reich." (384) What Ruppert and I were both looking at, each in his own way, was nothing less than America´s destiny.

That destiny, we agreed, is here, now.

Source dated the consecration of the Fourth Reich with the Second American Revolution of 2008-9, i.e., the replacement of the democracy/oligarchy hybrid system founded in 1789 with a full-fledged oligarchy. Why I picked 2008-9: in those years Bush/Obama publicly handed over $700 billion TARP public dollars to America´s archi-rich.

Ruppert picked September 11, 2001 as the start of the fateful transition to fascism, the frightening ride down. He quoted US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O´Connor who said only weeks after 9/11: "We´re likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country." Ruppert then cited an AP report published a year later that catalogued 7 freedoms and rights which had disappeared after 9/11, e.g., "RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial." (482)

In our terminology: the post-9/11 loss of democratic rights and freedoms was inherent to the replacement of the polity or oligarchy/democracy hybrid by a pure and simple oligarchy. That is to say: in your lifetime, dear reader, the U.S. underwent a revolution -- a change of, not in, political systems -- in which the widely-heralded democratic component was pushed beneath the waves. Only its flotsam-jetsam remains.

History shows there comes a time in the life of every major society when a decision must be made: which does it want, freedom or power? The United States chose power.

History also shows something else. Societies that choose power will eventually have neither freedom nor power.

* * *

Conspiracy: An agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal. Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement. -- Cornell University Law School --The crime of conspiracy, according to its modern interpretation, may be of two kinds, namely, conspiracies against the public, or such as endanger the public health, violate public morals, insult public justice, destroy the public peace, or affect public trade or business...What the evidence in [a federal] case must show beyond a reasonable doubt is: First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment; Second: That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy; Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and Fourth: That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy. -- Diane Harvey, Rense.com --

All legal experts agree that for a conspiracy to exist there must be communication between at least two people. Otherwise, we have a diffuse concurrence of interests, maybe identical but parallel goals -- nothing more. No communication; no conspiracy.I think that, on a practical level, for more than two people to conspire, a hub is required.Mike Ruppert found the 9/11 conspiracy hub in the largely forgotten National Energy Policy Development Group, a.k.a., Energy Task Force.

Created in 2001 under President Bush, the NEPDG was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. He stated the NEPDG´s purpose:

"To achieve a 21st century quality of life -- enhanced by reliable energy and a clean environment -- we must modernize conservation, modernize our infrastructure, increase our energy supplies, including renewables, accelerate the protection of our environment and increase our energy security."

Increase our energy security: that was the center of the hub, Ruppert contended. Everything else revolved around it. Energy security -- which means oil security -- was the centerpiece of Ruppert´s key passage from which Crossing The Rubicon derived its title:"It is my belief that sometime during the period between late 1998 and early 2000, as certain elites became aware of the pending calamity of Peak Oil, they looked at the first highly confidential exploration and drilling results from the Caspian Basis and shuddered...The data would surely come out, and what would happen to the markets then?...The elites began to grasp that the hoped-for Caspian reserves would not even offer a short reprieve form the onslaught of Peak Oil...Alarms started going off...Dick Cheney and the neo-cons stepped up with a plan...[They needed to] find out how much time there was before things started collapsing behind high energy prices and dwindling supply...How bad was it really? Who could say?...It was time to find all of it out accurately and quickly, but in secret...This would explain the urgency with which the Bush administration convened the National Energy Policy Development Group...immediately after taking office in January. What do we do now? That was the bottom line. I believe that this was where the basic motive for 9/11 was fully articulated, understood, and accepted...This would explain why the administration fought all the way to the US Supreme Court to hide [NEPDG] records...On July 2, 2004, in a little-known ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the administration to keep the NEPDG´s records secret from the American people...After the NEPDG concluded its work in late April 2001, I think an irrevocable decision had been made to cross the Rubicon, that bloody line between an ailing republic and the empire that irreversibly supervened. In May 2001 President Bush placed Dick Cheney in charge of all planning for a terror attack, effectively giving him complete control over FEMA, the military everything...From their perspective the Republican neo-cons were faced with a choice of massive panic and collapse on the financial markets; a loss of public faith in the political system; and the loss of most of their own power and wealth if the truth were known.Within their own mindset and within the parameters of an economic and governmental system that functioned (as it continues to function) in the mode of organized crime -- incapable of transparency, riddled with corruption and cooked books based upon the destruction of life for the sake of net profits and supremacy -- those men, led by Dick Cheney, chose what they thought was their only logical option. I believe it seemed to them the ´right´ thing to do; after all, it was only a few thousand lives. Other rulers have made similar choices in the past. But as all empires learn, once the river is crossed there is no turning back. In front of that decision there lay a continuum of ever more vicious bloodletting, decline, and collapse." (574-5)If you are curious, dear reader, about what I think of Ruppert´s thesis that 9/11 was the result of a Washington conspiracy, the answer is clear. It consists of the iron-clad way we mentioned to determine if Ruppert was correct or mistaken.NEDPG: There´s the rub. Michael Ruppert´s entire case for a 9/11 government conspiracy stands or falls on the secret NEDPG records and proceedings. If Washington wants to close Ruppert´s book forever, there is a simple way to do it:Mr. President, Congress, the Supreme Court: we call on you to lift the secrecy veil and release the NEDPG material. All of it, completely -- no black lines, no missing 18 1/2-minute taped conversations. Big oil knows what is there; it participated in the NEDPG. It´s our turn; we taxpayers want to know what we got for our money. Washington, you like to talk about transparency: do it. The NEDPG is the acid test, and it has only two grades: pass, fail. Of course, nobody expects you to do it. Until you open NEDPG records to the public, a consummatory question about a Washington 9/11 conspiracy will lurk in the background:If you are innocent, why are you behaving as though you were guilty? * * * New LifeI cannot end this post without mentioning Michael Ruppert´s death last month. His friends and associates left no doubt he took his own life -- that the CIA, FBI or other government agency did not kill him. And yet...In Crossing The Rubicon, Ruppert disclosed contents of a letter he received from Bradley Earl Ayers, former CIA agent:"I´m sure you...realize that the ideal ´solution´ for the dark forces is the gratuitous possibility that the target of discreditation, if subjected to the most personally embarrassing and socially reprehensible kind of (false) allegation, might self-destruct -- thus reinforcing the concocted aura of suspicion and negating the necessity for further character assassination.This is standard MO for the Agency´s counter-intelligence operations and has become a blueprint for other Federal entities as a means of quieting the most threatening whistle-blowers. Lo be it if you have any kind of vulnerability (or skeleton in the closet)! This is particularly the case in matter of sex or moral turpitude. How many have been taken out by suicide, devastated mentally or emotionally and institutionalized, or sought some escape in drugs and alcohol? Lives destroyed in one way or another in the pursuit of truth -- by false accusation." (175)We return to where this post started -- the ocean of ad hominem attacks against Michael Ruppert. They were not gratuitous.Likewise, neither is The Brontosaurus Factor. Boys and girls of the CIA, if you had the slightest understanding of whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden -- virtually all of them exhibit the syndrome of middle class rebellion -- there would be no need for you to spend time and resources cooking up false accusations in the first place.I ask you directly: did you kill Michael Ruppert via years of puerile innuendo just as surely as if you had pulled the trigger of his gun?Devoid of imagination and insight, CIA, you have only one recourse: take cues from Hollywood. Example: you learned from a Marlon Brando movie, "Viva Zapata" (1952), about what to do with Che Guevara´s corpse: publicly display it on a platform for washing clothes. To your detriment, you obviously did not watch the entire movie; you missed a classic line from John Steinbeck who wrote the script. Had you heard -- really heard -- that single sentence, instead of decades of ad hominem assaults and high-fiving with your colleagues on learning of Michael Ruppert´s suicide, you would have serious doubts about what you did. Serious doubts indeed...The dialogue line you missed (or didn´t understand): Sometimes a dead man can be a terrible enemy._______________

*For our debunking of the lone assassin theory, see this blog The Big Movida: The Third American Revoluton, Chapter 2.**For decades reports have circulated that FDR knew Japan was going to bomb Pearl Harbor but let it take place in order to gain public support to enter World War II.Ruppert paraphrased Jimmy Carter´s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard) that the "´immediate task´ was to develop and simultaneously control a ´direct external threat´ to manufacture an attack ´like a new Pearl Harbor.´" (575)Brzezinski was not alone in having Pearl Harbor on his mind...Brzezinski´s book was published in 1997, the same year neo-cons founded a think tank, Project for The New American Century. Cheney, Perle, Rumsfelt, Wolfowitz, Abrams: many of its members/signatories soon would occupy key posts in the Bush Administration. A year before 9/11, the Project published a report, "Rebuilding America´s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century":"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with newtechnologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies,in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons wil ldominate the battlefield and, inevitably,which nations enjoy military preeminence.The United States enjoys every prospect of leading this transformation...[T]he process of transformation,even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent somecatastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." (50-1) ***Fishy stock market action before 9/11 provides one illustration of the triple play.(i) Conspiracy. The incredible volume of puts purchased on the two 9/11-affected airlines is a significant, quantitative indicator that somebody knew something and decided to cash in. Statistically speaking, it is unreasonable and irresponsible to be a "coincidence theorist" on this point.(ii) Coincidence. The trend is your friend, any stock broker will tell you. Innocent investors, seeing the surge in put purchases, followed the insiders, thereby exacerbating the already extra-large trading volume.(iii) Incomcruption. Insiders who engaged in put purchases in the two airlines and other businesses directly damaged by 9/11 were not only corrupt, they were also incompetent. The reason: to pocket megabucks in 2001, an insider did not have to focus on direct-victim businesses.

Whenever catastrophes occur, stocks in general dive. Case in point: the day the stock market opened after 9/11 the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 684 points, the biggest loss ever. A monkey with a dart board could have successfully picked losers.

Zeroing in on major 9/11-loser companies was not only unnecessary to make a killing, it was incredibly foolish. By focusing on companies directly harmed by 9/11, an insider trader exposed himself; he would have some heavy explaining to do when he showed up to claim his winnings. If properly interrogated, the entire conspiracy would unravel.

So, who were the insider traders? Ruppert reported that nine agencies opened investigations into pre-9/11 insider trading but not one "to this day divulged any information to the public." (253)

One suspicious trade in particular provides quantifiable proof of our incomcruption thesis: somebody left $2.5 million in winnings on the table. (245)

"I know of no nation where there reigns, in general, less independence of spirit and true liberty of discussion than in the United States …The Inquisition never could stop numerous anti-religion books from circulating in Spain. In the United States, the tyranny of the majority has taken away even the thought of publishing them." -- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America,* 1835 --There they go again.Freedom House, a self-described Non-Governmental Organization -- self-described because 80% of its funding comes from the federal government -- just missed a wonderful opportunity to shut up.

In what is now a tawdry rite of spring, every May 1 Freedom House publishes its report on freedom in the world. The United States Government then uses the report to launch a full-court mainstream press to browbeat nations around the globe. True to form, four days ago the Washington-based organization released this year´s report, "Freedom in The World 2014," which we learn is the 41st installment of the "oldest, most authoritative report of democracy and human rights."Most authoritative: of course if Freedom House says it, it must be true. And it is true, although not in the sense Freedom House means: for more on modern authoritarians, see below.

For the eighth consecutive year, Freedom in The World recorded more declines in democracy worldwide than gains;

Some leaders effectively relied on ´modern authoritarianism,´ crippling their political opposition without annihilating it and flouting the rule of law while maintaining a veneer of order, legitimacy and prosperity;

Central to modern authoritarians is the capture of institutions that undergird political pluralism. They seek to dominate not only the executive and legislative branches, but also the media, judiciary, civil society, economy and security forces."

Crippling. Flouting. Veneer. Freedom House judged 88 countries to be "free," 59 "partly free," and 48 "not free." If you want to know how anybody could make such an astronomical, world-beating judgment quoted by indolent journalists and politicians worldwide, read on. Freedom House simultaneously released another report, "Freedom of The Press 2014." Given who is paying for Freedom House, I know that the following utterly amazing finding will blow your hat in the creek, Dear Reader: the U.S. scored 21, which placed it solidly in the "free" category. Alexis de Tocqueville be damned. That is 2 points better than the United Kingdom, and a huge 41 points better than Ecuador, which slipped from "partly free" into the "not free" category.Freedom House, I swear I just heard you gasp. You know what is coming next...

Two years ago, our blog exposed Freedom House for what it is: a slab-dab hoax. Slab dab, because its methodology for defining free, partly free and not free -- the corner stone of its entire operation -- would not pass a 101 political science class (Note: I taught hundreds of freshmen at the University of Florida). Hoax, because with the United States Government picking up 80% of its tab, Freedom House is anything but free.

Here is Freedom House´s statement of mission:

"Freedom House is an independent watchdog organization that advances freedom around the world by supporting democratic change, monitoring freedom, and advocating for human rights.

Today, more than two billion people worldwide live under authoritarian regimes that deprive them of the most basic freedoms, the ones many of us take for granted: the freedom to vote, to voice opinions, to seek justice, to live where they want, or choose their own faith. Support Freedom House today and help the women and men who live in societies where freedom is denied or under threat.

Stand with us in opposition to ideas and forces that challenge the right of all people to be free."

Freedom House, we challenged you in 2012 and again in 2013 (see our post of May 17, "Freedom House: Independent Watchdog or Court Jester?") to stand and deliver on your mission statement. Stand, by openly acknowledging for the first time that financially you are a ward of the Federal Government.

As for deliver, our two posts proposed an innovative, concrete action Freedom House could take:

The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and The International Herald Tribune refused to publish a short article I wrote days after the 2000 presidential election. The article presented an hypothesis -- fully testable, quantifiable -- regarding how George W. Bush stole the election in Florida and with it the presidency. I note here that unlike any employee in the above-mentioned newspapers, I am an accredited expert witness in federal court on politics. The censored article presents exactly what I would testify to under oath.

Freedom House, I challenged you to be a true advocate for human rights, especially the freedom to voice opinions and to seek justice, as well as to stand in opposition to ideas and forces that threaten freedom. You could have done so by securing publication of the censored article; as a letter to the editor will suffice. I renew that challenge to you here, today. So go ahead -- pick up the phone, call around. You aren´t...afraid, are you?

Watchdog, you failed to watch. You failed to stand, much less deliver. Out of unabashed, unabridged, short-term economic self-interest, you do not fight for freedom of the press and expression in the United States, much less anywhere else. On the contrary, you are a second stringer cheerleader for a team that is, in Tocqueville´s words, on the far side of the Spanish Inquisition.

* * *

Don´t look now, Freedom House, but as of 2012 your yearly report has an unsolicited appendix. You are reading it.The following post will be released every year until Freedom House (i) admits what it is, a non-governmental organization in name only; (ii) denounces and corrects its methodology (see below) i.e., replaces its hapless and hopeless hearsay evaluations from unidentified "experts" with objective, quantitative content analysis; and (iii) obtains publication of our censored article also presented below.

There you have it. Once more, here is our original post as it appeared on May 17, 2012.

Freedom House: Pay It Again, Sam

Judge not, that ye be not judged. -- Matthew 7:1-5 --

We all like freedom. Same holds for house.

How, then, could anybody possibly complain about an organization named Freedom House?

“Freedom House is an independent watchdog organization that advances freedom around the world by supporting democratic change, monitoring freedom, and advocating for human rights.

Today, more than two billion people worldwide live under authoritarian regimes that deprive them of the most basic freedoms, the ones many of us take for granted: the freedom to vote, to voice opinions, to seek justice, to live where they want, or choose their own faith. Support Freedom House today and help the women and men who live in societies where freedom is denied or under threat.”

There is a key unspoken assumption in that declaration. Societies actually exist in which freedom is (i) not denied and/or (ii) not under threat. That assumption – very American – is unacceptable because freedom everywhere is always under threat and/or denied.

We will return to this freedom-has-been-acquired presumption. It is culture-bound at best, an outright lie at worse.

Usually, whenever the words Freedom House appear, two other words instantly follow: non-government organization. Is Freedom House what it claims to be -- independent?

Is Freedom House free?

One tiny bit of information is missing on the web site of these give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death freedom fighters: who are these masked men anyway? Who pays their bills? When I lived there, rents on Dupont Circle where Freedom House´s main office is located, weren`t free. And what about its 150 employees? How do they put hamburgers on the table? Freedom House, for some strange reason, does not tell us.

80% of Freedom House`s budget is paid by the United States Government. Federal dollars increased from $12 to $20 million in 2004-2005 (Bush years), so Uncle Sam clearly felt he was getting his money`s worth.

He who pays the fiddler calls the tune. With the government paying most of the tab, Freedom House is non-governmental in name only. Watch out -- this self-proclaimed independent watchdogorganization needs to be watched. The judge of entire nations needs to be judged.

As for the fiddler´s tune, pay it – I mean, play it – again, Sam…

On May 1, 2012, Freedom House released a report, “Freedom of The Press 2012.” Its core finding:

“Of the 197 countries and territories assessed during 2011, … a total of 66 (33.5 percent) were rated Free, 72 (36.5 percent) were rated Partly Free, and 59 (30 percent) were rated Not Free…The analysis found that only 14.5 percent of the world’s inhabitants lived in countries with a Free press, while 45 percent had a Partly Free press and 40.5 percent lived in Not Free environments.”

Dear Reader, I know the following conclusion will astonish you, given who is giving Freedom House this day its daily bread: the United States has a free press. It scored 18 points (0 to 30 qualifies for a “Free Press” merit badge, 31 to 60 as “Partly Free” and 61 to 100 as “Not Free.”)

Free, Not Free: Of course, everything depends on definitions. In that regard, Freedom House presents its methodology with one of the most incredible boasts I have ever seen:

“The foundation of Freedom House`s work is its analysis…Freedom House's rigorous research methodology has earned the organization a reputation as the leading source of information on the state of freedom worldwide.”

The leading source on freedom. Talk about thinking big. If the assertion is true, Freedom House is truly a great organization. If not, well, it is something else.

Let`s take a look at the methodology so highly vaunted. First, though, I had better explain something to all you non-social scientists out there: the necessity to operationalize abstract concepts and terms.

To start with, what is freedom? To make the word meaningful, I need to operationalize it, i.e., define it in terms of indicators that are observable, objective, not arbitrary and preferably quantifiable. An example of one such indicator of freedom: the ability to travel around one`s country without prior government approval. Note: official travel control is observable and identifiable. It is also not debatable: either prior approval (i) exists or it (ii) does not. In that regard, my personal opinion about it – “I don`t believe prior approval is needed" -- means nothing.

I will say it again: any real indicator is observable, concrete. For that reason, to say that an indicator of freedom is “justice combined with equality,” is false. Here I have defined one abstraction in terms of another abstraction. No real indicator is present. Stated differently, I have not said what I mean.

With those notes in mind, how does Freedom House´s methodology stack up?

The methodology Freedom House uses to evaluate freedom of the press around the world consists of 23 questions. I saw on its web site a reference to 109 indicators; I ran a search and couldn´t find them. However, I did locate 124 bullets or subpoints for all questions. I assume they are the indicators, and will proceed accordingly.

Any reasonable review of the 23 questions instantly raises yet more questions:

A specific case. Question A7: “Are media regulatory bodies, such as a broadcasting authority or national press or communications council, able to operate freely and independently?” Obviously, freely and independently are subject to all sorts of interpretations; they are abstract. Hence, they need to be defined by indicators. Freedom House offers this indicator: “Are decisions taken by the regulatory body seen to be fair and apolitical?” Here freely and independently has been defined as fair and apolitical. Two abstractions have been defined in terms of two other abstractions: what is fair? Apolitical? Around and around we go, floating around in the clouds, never touching earth. That is why no real indicator was offered.

As for the word seen (to be fair):

Freedom House`s methodology is flooded with subjective, arbitrary, imprecise terms. Throughout the 124 indicators you will find the words regularly, routinely, undue interference, unduly onerous, extensive, substantial, undue influence, adequate presence, sufficient level, highly concentrated. They are a clue to what we are in for:

We are in the realm of judgment, not facts. Real indicators deal with the latter. (To clarify: a real indicator would define routinely as once a week, once a day, etc.)

Presenting phony indicators, that is to say, defining one abstraction or opinion/evaluation in terms of another, is not Freedom House`s only problem. Some questions and their indicators are blatant tautologies. In such cases, the assumption is the conclusion; the conclusion, the assumption. Example: question B4: “Do journalists practice self-censorship?” Here is one of Freedom House´s indicators: “Is there widespread self-censorship in the state-owned media? In the privately-owned media?”

Self-censorship is a crucial phenomenon. But what is it exactly? At first blush, such terms (pornography, national security, middle class, organic food, etc.) seem obvious. On closer examination, however, they melt in the hand. Because its indicator only rephrases the term it supposedly defines, Freedom House tells us that self-censorship is…self-censorship. We are sent from Pontius to Pilate.

To conclude this point: Freedom House makes no attempt to do what it demands of others, i.e., use non-arbitrary objective criteria (A4). Research tools exist which work to accomplish that goal. My first research job in grad school was a content analysis of a certain nation´s government radio broadcasts. Thousands of hours were spent coding and entering data, then analyzing them with the Statistical Package for The Social Sciences, notably factor analysis. The key question: did the broadcasts become more bellicose when a future act of aggression by that country was at hand? Did the broadcasts predict war? The word bellicose had to be defined precisely, objectively, nonarbitrarily. In such matters, personal opinions and judgments not only don`t count, they bias and defeat the purpose of the study. Human lives were at stake. Given its nonsubjective approach, the research successfully answered the key question.

Freedom of the press can and should be defined by objective, nonarbitrary indicators, then measured and analyzed quantitatively, using content analysis of actual media reports. On the other hand, if you want to measure PEOPLE´S OPINIONS AND JUDGMENTS about freedom of the press in their or other countries, go ahead. That is, in fact, what Freedom House is doing; it admits in its methodology presentation:

“The findings are reached after a multilayered process of analysis and evaluation by a team of regional experts and scholars. Although there is an element of subjectivity inherent in the index findings, the ratings process emphasizes intellectual rigor and balanced and unbiased judgments.

The research and ratings process involved several dozen analysts—including members of the core research team headquartered in New York, along with outside consultants—who prepared the draft ratings and country reports. Their conclusions are reached after gathering information from professional contacts in a variety of countries, staff and consultant travel, international visitors, the findings of human rights and press freedom organizations, specialists in geographic and geopolitical areas, the reports of governments and multilateral bodies, and a variety of domestic and international news media.”

The judgments of visitors, professionals, etc., then, are what Freedom House collects. In and of itself, nothing is wrong there. However, you should NOT claim -- as does Freedom House -- that you are measuring freedom of the press per se. By disregarding that distinction, Freedom House falls off a cliff.

* * *

Freedom House asks this question (B1): “Is there official or unofficial censorship?”

About official censorship, Freedom House has plenty to say. Too much, in fact. That is because unofficial censorship is where Freedom House`s freedom ends.

Freedom House, I don´t like to be the one to tell you but in your self-proclaimed opposition to ideas and forces that challenge the right of all people to be free, you are not the leader. That honor belongs to one man -- a beacon, an icon. He is no longer with us. You know who I mean.

George Orwell, author of 1984 and Animal Farm, indefatigable fighter of official censorship, came to an astonishing conclusion. The most serious censor is not official, governmental. He wrote:

“Obviously it is not desirable that a government department should have any power of censorship (except security censorship, which no one objects to in war time) over books which are not officially sponsored. But the chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of…any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves [my emphasis]…

The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news - things which on their own merits would get the big headlines - being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that 'it wouldn't do' to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralized, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is 'not done' to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was 'not done' to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.”

Out of 124 indicators of freedom of the press, Freedom House offers only 6 of the veiled censorship Orwell warned about. The reason for this glaring inattention is simple: in Orwell`s words, the media are owned by wealthy men, i.e., the oligarchy. America today has an oligarchic political system with democratic decor, accessories (see post of 9-22-2011 "The Ultimate Taboo Question"). Now, by definition no oligarchy permits real and meaningful criticism of it; indeed, in the U.S. the oligarchy doesn`t even allow one to say that America has an oligarchic political system. Freedom House is no more free to criticize the oligarchy than is anybody else, perhaps even less. 150 staffers working in high rent districts: better look once more at who is paying their bills.

One of Freedom House´s questions for evaluating freedom of the press obliquely touches on Orwell´s concern: “B1. To what extent are media outlets’ news and information content determined by the government or a particular partisan interest?” [My emphasis] I am sure some Freedom House staffer will jump up and down, contending that the underlined wording "covers" the problem of unofficial censorship. To which we respond: Why, then, don´t you just spit it out? To wit: To what extent are media outlets´ news and information content determined by wealthy media owners? That is the question.

Freedom House busies itself with official censorship issues. It does not – because it cannot – look too deeply into unofficial ones. If it did, would Freedom House discover that the United States has one of the most censored presses in the world? That conclusion, as Orwell put it, wouldn`t do.

Libertinage for media oligarchs always parades as freedom of the press (see post of 2/12/2012 "One-Eyed Jacks Versus Rafael Correa"). In leaving latent the issue of media ownership, Freedom House makes manifest for whom it is working.

But let`s look further into this matter:

Freedom House and media owners, you love to associate freedom of the press with democracy itself. Fine, since you asked for it, let`s do it:

In truth, the United States never had a democracy. It had a политей or polity, an oligarchy/democracy hybrid tending toward democracy and moderated by a large middle class (see post of 10-24-2011 "The Great American Illusion"). Look high and low, you will not find that 100% Aristotelian conclusion expressed anywhere but on this blog. You want a specific, concrete case of unofficial veiled censorship – there it is.

What it all comes down to:

As this blog has consistently maintained, democracy is a direction, not a place. You will never get to A north; no such place exists. You can only get more or less north. The same is true for democracy. Now, if there is no democracy per se anywhere, then there is no freedom of the press per se anywhere. If that is true, then Freedom House´s judgments of nations as “Free” and “Not Free” are as nonsensical as Freedom House´s self-designation as a “non-governmental organization."

* * *

Freedom House:

"Stand with us in opposition to ideas and forces that challenge the right of all people to be free.”

Freedom House, do you actually do what you claim? Support and advocate human rights?

Shortly after the 2000 election took place, I wrote an article about how George Bush may have stolen the election in Florida. No newspaper in America, among them the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times, would print it, even as a letter to the editor. The reason takes us directly to Orwell:

(i) The conclusion that the United States President might be a thief wouldn`t do.

(ii) The media are owned by the oligarchy; George Bush was their preference.

Given (i) and (ii), veiled censorship of the article was the only possible outcome.

With minor changes, here is the censored article. Freedom House, fearless foe of anti-freedom ideas and forces, let us see what you do with it.

12 years later, the question is still hanging in the air. There may be a way to answer it.

To my knowledge, the election scam I will present here has never been revealed. [i] Insider stuff.

First, three facts were known before the 2000 election took place:

(1) The closeness of the election. One election eve headline said it all:

"Race for White House Is Seen by the Polls As Closest in 40 years."[ii]

(2) The same article noted that George Bush

"remained behind in some polls in Florida, a populous state where his brother, Jeb, is governor."

(3) Florida held the key to the White House. A report published election morning noted that Al Gore

"had waged an all-night blitz in Florida, which he told supporters, 'may very well be the state that decides the outcome of this election.'"[iii]

Close election; Bush in trouble in Florida; Florida the key. Clearly, there was a motive to cheat. But was there opportunity?

Election night, the Florida vote count dribbled in. There was

"a double turnaround by television networks which, using computer projections, reported that Mr. Gore had won Florida before deciding that that was premature, and then gave the state and the presidency to Mr. Bush before deciding again that they had drawn a hasty conclusion." [iv]

What on earth (or elsewhere) was happening?

Forget the butterfly ballot; forget hanging chad. Or rather, do not forget them, but look past them. They may have been diversions.

Starting in 1974, I directed many candidates' get-out-the-vote drives on Election Day. I saw many strange things. Among them: dead people voting.

The usual explanation: somebody collects names in cemeteries and registers those names to vote. Live people then appear at the polls using the dead people's names.

Frankly, I doubt that scam occurs to a significant degree:

First, it is too risky. All it takes is one flabbergasted precinct worker confronted with a would-be voter posing as the worker's dearly departed husband and the whole scheme is torn to shreds.

Second, the cemetery ploy relies on the live person to be honest and vote the way he is told. Well, we know about his honesty. Once the curtain closes, who knows what happens? Simply put: buying a person is one thing; will he stay bought is another.

And third, there is another way for dead people to vote without either of the disadvantages just mentioned

I am not excluding the cemetery ploy -- just discounting it. How, then, do dead people vote?

Here is the scam I mentioned. So far, it has been 100% safe; otherwise, you would know about it and would not be reading these words. 100% reliable, too.

Being unmentionable, the scam has no name. I will call it "The Long Count" in honor of the 1927 heavyweight championship fight between Jack Dempsey and Gene Tunney.

Alone at last, the officials change hats. An uncivic duty begins. They open voter rosters along with a bottle or two (optional). Forget upstream brew -- this is a Gatorade and bourbon crowd.

The roster is the document with names of registered voters that you sign immediately before you vote.

The night crew no longer cares about voters. Their attention is fixed on non-voters -- the names with no signatures.

Roster in hand, Crew Member 1 signs the name of a person who did not vote. He signals to Crew Member 2 standing in a voting machine. Crew Member 2 pushes the button for straight Democrat, straight Republican, George Bush, Al Gore -- whatever. More sophisticated election night crews pass the rosters around; otherwise, the similarity of signatures might attract attention.

Of course, when Crew Member 1 sees a blank space beside a name on a roster, he does not know if the person is alive. When he signs a name, guess what can happen?

Now you know how dead people vote. Lots of them. In the "right" way, too -- always.

Dead people who vote are Democrats and Republicans, men and women, old and young. The Long Count is an equal opportunity employer.

The signing of rosters and button pushing takes time. That is why delayed reporting of election returns is the telltale heart of The Long Count.

How many votes are enough? In Florida 2000, Bush's margin was less than 600 votes. That question brings us to the second cause of The Long Count:

The final vote total is the topic of a fast and furious communications. The election crew boss passes the word up the line: we want this...we want that... He has every reason to drag out the talks, unlike the candidate. This leads to interesting -- if not always civil -- dialogue.

Theoretically, The Long Count is possible anywhere. However, the county clerk must be in on it, or at least be willing to look the other way. I know, I know: you think the clerk would not let candidates of his or her own party crash and burn. I hate to tell you, but I have known public officials who would sell out for a baked potato at the palace.

The Long Count leaves traces. They are so obvious they are overlooked.

To find them, go hunting where the ducks are.

Start with precincts in isolated, rural areas. Those are the easiest ones to control physically. In Florida that means the northern counties. Two facts about them: (i) Most of them voted for Bush in 2000. (ii) I spent six years there.

The traces:

(1) Precincts with unusually high turnouts. Look not only at 2000, but also prior elections. Either those precincts are full of good citizens or they are full of something else.

(2) Among the group of precincts with abnormally high turnouts, look for precincts with abnormally high percentages for Bush. If Republican candidates usually get 70% of the vote in a precinct but Bush got 90%, a red flag should go up.

(3) The clincher: dead people voted.

When all 3 traces are present, something was -- as we say in the political trade -- "wired up."Put The Long Count at the top of the list. A handwriting expert should be called in to examine signatures in any dubious precinct roster.

I must emphasize that even if the Bushes used The Long Count, that fact does preclude the possibility that Democrats, too, exercised it. Look at both sides, and not just in Florida.

The three-point Florida study outlined above would make an excellent political science master's thesis. And it might solve once and for all the mystery of did-he-or-didn't-he.